It combines the cellular modem and direct short-range radio together in one.

Share this story

A few weeks ago, I wondered whether connected cars might end up using LTE modems for Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) communications rather than the 5.9GHz Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) protocol. Although the DSRC bandwidth was allocated in 1999 and the 802.11p spec was outlined in 2002, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been very slow to act, and here in 2017 we're still waiting for automakers to actually add it to any of their vehicles.

By contrast, 4G LTE is becoming pervasive across new car lineups with no reason to believe it will be any different when 5G LTE arrives. But today, Qualcomm revealed a new chipset for OEMs that will let us have our connected car cakes and eat them too.

Due in the second half of 2018, it's called the Qualcomm 9150 C-V2X chipset, and the name sort of gives it away. C is for cellular, as it will work with 4G and emerging 5G networks. And V2X—Vehicle-to-Everything—means it also uses the 5.9GHz V2X protocol that is meant to directly connect to other cars, traffic lights, and even pedestrians. The C-V2X chipset also has an integrated global navigation satellite system built in, and Qualcomm has also come up with a C-V2X reference design that pairs the chipset with an application processor running its Intelligent Transportation Systems V2X stack and a hardware security module.

"With its strong synergy with telematics and an evolution toward 5G, C-V2X offers benefits to the automotive industry by developing new capabilities for improving road safety and enhancing autonomous driving and advanced connected services, while building on the ITS momentum and investments made over the last decade. C-V2X is expected to support safer roads, increase productivity, and decrease traffic congestion," said Nakul Duggal, VP of product management at Qualcomm.

You have to hand it to Qualcomm—this seems like a smart move. It will shortly be almost impossible to buy a new car without a cellular modem built in, a market of which Qualcomm already owns a huge slice. By combining V2X into the same unit, OEMs don't have to find room for yet another black box inside their cars. And then we might finally start seeing enough cars on the road for V2X to start working.

Personally, I'm not too thrilled with a 4g/5g enabled vehicle. Primarily because it is simply an additional distraction to the driver. Secondly, it simply enable additional usury by the vehicle manufacturer to force you on a single provider.

On the other hand, I applaud Quallcom for finally bringing something out with V2V because it is about time and it will take at least another 5-10 years to get this integrated safely into vehicles so that additional awareness can be provided to the driver and the vehicles automated driving systems

If done correctly the autonomous vehicle can be one of the greatest tech advancements ever created. On its own it is one of the greatest vulnerabilities from a safety aspect ever presented to a manufacturer. If cost/profit is the main consideration in the chips development and it is a race to be first among chip manufacturers, it is quite possible it will end up like IOT. Drive with caution.

im reading this article and all i can think of is this a governments wet dream.. to have everything connected and available for surveillance. yes we can point to all the positives that this will bring, but the negatives are usually an after thought.. unfortunately.

This reminds me the scene in Ghost In The Shell Stand Alone Complex where they hack into the emergency V2V system to broadcast an emergency alert and make the vehicles stop. Unfortunately, I couldn't find it online

Well, this is unfortunate. Now I have to make a tin foil hat for my car, too. I wonder if 'someone hacked my car' is going to be an acceptable response when the officer looks at me and says, 'do you know how fast you were going?" Maybe my response will be, "No, but that red light definitely does!"

If its going to be that pervaisive in such safety critical systems as automated traffic management, the security better be dang good from the get go.

Automotive security, LOL.isn't that an oxymoron? Around 40,000 people die in car related "accidents" per year in the US. That's a medium city wiped out every year. No one cares. What's another 20,000 deaths in the name of progress and, um.. er... safety? No one will care.

What a nonsense attitude. Vehicle deaths per 100,000 people peaked in 1937, at around 30.

Going into the 1980s, it was still over 20. In 1990 it's down to 17.8, 2000 sees a drop to below 15 for the first time. In 2014 it was around 10. it's been climbing steadily over the past 2-3 years, for various reasons. Autonomous cars would have to be pretty catastrophically terrible to be a net negative to safety.

Budget cuts and complacency are why we're seeing an increase in automotive deaths, not new technology.

Now, since Qualcom has such a sterling track record for support (snicker) I cant wait to see what happens 5 years down the line. I refuse to replace my car like I would a phone. Too expensive, too major.

If its going to be that pervaisive in such safety critical systems as automated traffic management, the security better be dang good from the get go.

Automotive security, LOL.isn't that an oxymoron? Around 40,000 people die in car related "accidents" per year in the US. That's a medium city wiped out every year. No one cares. What's another 20,000 deaths in the name of progress and, um.. er... safety? No one will care.

The whole push behind V2V, V2X, and self-driving cars, at least here in the US, is precisely because so many people die on the roads. (It was about 37k last year). I think the suggestion that this will add to that death toll by 50 percent is more than a little unreasonable.

If its going to be that pervaisive in such safety critical systems as automated traffic management, the security better be dang good from the get go.

Automotive security, LOL.isn't that an oxymoron? Around 40,000 people die in car related "accidents" per year in the US. That's a medium city wiped out every year. No one cares. What's another 20,000 deaths in the name of progress and, um.. er... safety? No one will care.

Which way to go with this...

If one person dies or is even injured and word gets out it was due to "hacking the vehicle internet", statistics no longer matter - a media circus and the opposite of hilarity ensues. EVERYONE'S CAR COULD BE HACKED! FREAK OUT! PASS LAWS!

On the other hand, this opens a very real avenue for a safety threat, given the propensity to make more vehicle subsystems drive-by-wire or autonomous and open to theoretical attacks. Given unique IDs, communication with stoplights could be used to target individuals to set them up for accidents. Effects of a well crafted worm could be...bad.

Remember what happened when the NSA bag of tricks got out - the bad actors snapped it up at put it to use in no time. The likelihood of this happening again is not zero, but with potentially worse effects.

If its going to be that pervaisive in such safety critical systems as automated traffic management, the security better be dang good from the get go.

Automotive security, LOL.isn't that an oxymoron? Around 40,000 people die in car related "accidents" per year in the US. That's a medium city wiped out every year. No one cares. What's another 20,000 deaths in the name of progress and, um.. er... safety? No one will care.

What a nonsense attitude. Vehicle deaths per 100,000 people peaked in 1937, at around 30.

Going into the 1980s, it was still over 20. In 1990 it's down to 17.8, 2000 sees a drop to below 15 for the first time. In 2014 it was around 10. it's been climbing steadily over the past 2-3 years, for various reasons. Autonomous cars would have to be pretty catastrophically terrible to be a net negative to safety.

Budget cuts and complacency are why we're seeing an increase in automotive deaths, not new technology.

Absolutely right. Complacency because people are connected via their cell phones. It is an interesting paradigm that the answer to the problem is to bypass the user interface to the cell tower.Dystopic at least.

Now, since Qualcom has such a sterling track record for support (snicker) I cant wait to see what happens 5 years down the line. I refuse to replace my car like I would a phone. Too expensive, too major.

I wonder if roads are going to have system requirements in thirty years.

"Interstate highways require carOS 12 or later and 32GB of memory, or Android Auto 16 or later and 48GB of memory. Other vehicles must remain on surface streets."

I think the problem may be the X part of this. If the equivalent chip for the infrastructure items, only cost 1$ and only requires one screw and a couple of wire nuts to install multiply that small cost by the number of traffic lights, school zone signs, buses etc. The municipalities will manage to say they can't afford it.

And I am assuming that they will be able to buy for 1$ specific versions of the X chip that say " I am a school zone and I am here and the speed limit is now 25mph" ( and of course the " End of school zone..." version) without the city having to write any software.

I think the problem may be the X part of this. If the equivalent chip for the infrastructure items, only cost 1$ and only requires one screw and a couple of wire nuts to install multiply that small cost by the number of traffic lights, school zone signs, buses etc. The municipalities will manage to say they can't afford it.

And I am assuming that they will be able to buy for 1$ specific versions of the X chip that say " I am a school zone and I am here and the speed limit is now 25mph" ( and of course the " End of school zone..." version) without the city having to write any software.

I've said it before. I won't own a vehicle that has a connected anything that I don't have 100% control over. Typically, that means a hardline connection and ONLY that.

GPS, radio, that's fine. Wifi, bluetooth, LTE (of any variety), no. At least not unless there's a hard "off" switch or a fuse I can pull.

Call me a Luddite, I don't fucking care. I do not want or need any of these features. I don't want everyone and God to know where my car is 100% of the time. I don't trust car companies to make bullet-proof connected devices. (Fucking NO ONE ELSE has, so why should I think car companies, of all people, are going to get it right?)

I don't give two shits what other people want, but, please note, I'm not saying they shouldn't spray their location to the planet while being bombarded by whatever security BS comes their way if that's what floats their boat. It's THEIR choice, even if I think it's delusional, and their consequences to bear. But I fucking hate this "connected everything" paradigm that's out there. I'm not a sharer like others (apparently) are.

I just find it hugely annoying that I'll likely have to accessorize any new vehicle purchase of mine with wire cutters...

If its going to be that pervaisive in such safety critical systems as automated traffic management, the security better be dang good from the get go.

Automotive security, LOL.isn't that an oxymoron? Around 40,000 people die in car related "accidents" per year in the US. That's a medium city wiped out every year. No one cares. What's another 20,000 deaths in the name of progress and, um.. er... safety? No one will care.

What a nonsense attitude. Vehicle deaths per 100,000 people peaked in 1937, at around 30.

Going into the 1980s, it was still over 20. In 1990 it's down to 17.8, 2000 sees a drop to below 15 for the first time. In 2014 it was around 10. it's been climbing steadily over the past 2-3 years, for various reasons. Autonomous cars would have to be pretty catastrophically terrible to be a net negative to safety.

Budget cuts and complacency are why we're seeing an increase in automotive deaths, not new technology.

For the record, the number of deaths in traffic accidents in the United States has generally decreased overall. Image The reason for that has nothing to do with budget cuts nor complacency. It has everything to do with mandatory safety regulations in cars.

Once upon a time, car accidents killed more people than gunfire in the U.S. did. Today, they're about even. This is because regulation of guns and safety has been (mostly) stripped away while for cars, it hasn't.

So there is no significant increase in deaths in auto accidents, either in raw numbers, per capita or in miles driven. In all respects, they've gone down.

I like passive safety systems, lane-following, auto-breaking and other safety features that don't require a connection to other vehicles. I like the convenience of GPS (in the exceptionally rare instances I actually need it - I usually memorize the routes before-hand). I like my music for long trips, and will burn CD's if I want it (Yes, very 90's, I get that). Usually, I prefer keeping an ear out for traffic around me (I like to maintain situational awareness).

So those are the limits I'm currently willing to accept with respect to autonomy in my vehicle. I don't see that this chip has anything to do with autonomous vehicles, though, other than to be a vector in hacking them. I tend to see them as more of a means of regulating traffic flow - something that can also be achieved by non-connected sensors. But in both cases, one needs 100% penetration of the technology in order to best make use of traffic management methods.

This, I think, is why V2V hasn't been a thing, despite once being hugely popular. I'm inclined to think that because other safety systems have become more of a standard feature thing (though not in all vehicles), along with a general decrease on the total number of miles driven by most people today (thanks in part to multiple huge spikes in gas prices that prompted people to be more efficient in how they drive) the need to implement V2V for traffic management has been, well, not nearly as pressing as it once was.

I'm not convinced the pressure is back on, either.

Technology does progress. Some embrace it, some don't, some are content to merely be "associates" with it and not friends. That's how life works. What remains to be seen is how well this stuff works. I EXPECT it to work badly, based mostly on how "well" IoT was implemented (yes, that's sarcasm). I could be wrong. But nothing I've seen coming out of any company today suggests anything other than my being right. So until it's done right, a connected car isn't in my future.

If its going to be that pervaisive in such safety critical systems as automated traffic management, the security better be dang good from the get go.

Simplistically it should not be required nor thought to be reliable. Emergencies create extreme burdens on cellular network and also gathering of individuals. Individuals also travel to places that don't even have cell reception.

Critical systems should not require the internet nor external communication to properly work.

AT&T and others will trying and make the statements otherwise. Example, need fast lanes for Critical Systems ....

I wonder if our generation will see such safety hit a critical mass wherein vehicles without V2V or V2X are deemed not only unsafe, but a hazard to equipped vehicles and thus unlicensable?

If we do reach that point I expect there will be a booming market for standalone add-on systems. Likely most important would be a V2X broadcasting the vehicle's Basic Safety Message which includes information like position and trajectory. That should be pretty easy to build into a waterproof box with a GPS and shove under the hood on any car, just add power.

I wonder if our generation will see such safety hit a critical mass wherein vehicles without V2V or V2X are deemed not only unsafe, but a hazard to equipped vehicles and thus unlicensable?

If we do reach that point I expect there will be a booming market for standalone add-on systems. Likely most important would be a V2X broadcasting the vehicle's Basic Safety Message which includes information like position and trajectory. That should be pretty easy to build into a waterproof box with a GPS and shove under the hood on any car, just add power.

And reflash it so that all the vehicles around you move out of your way thinking you're more important. I look forward to it!

Who knew there were extra-wide-load ambulances anyway...whatever *self driving car pulls over on its own*

If its going to be that pervaisive in such safety critical systems as automated traffic management, the security better be dang good from the get go.

Simplistically it should not be required nor thought to be reliable. Emergencies create extreme burdens on cellular network and also gathering of individuals. Individuals also travel to places that don't even have cell reception.

Critical systems should not require the internet nor external communication to properly work.

AT&T and others will trying and make the statements otherwise. Example, need fast lanes for Critical Systems ....

Oh I hadn't even thought about that. We know how bad the cell networks are with any little incident or big sales happening when people all try and make calls. now we expect them to work better with more than double the amount of devices? I know a number of people without cellphones but nobody I know doesn't have a car.

Now, since Qualcom has such a sterling track record for support (snicker) I cant wait to see what happens 5 years down the line. I refuse to replace my car like I would a phone. Too expensive, too major.

I wonder if roads are going to have system requirements in thirty years.

"Interstate highways require carOS 12 or later and 32GB of memory, or Android Auto 16 or later and 48GB of memory. Other vehicles must remain on surface streets."

You forgot also requiring 20 different E-toll cards and transponders because we have to make everything "hot lanes" on highways anymore.

And that's another thing. If we can't even standardize how you pay a toll how the heck are we going to standardize this mass "everything to everything" system?

I've said it before. I won't own a vehicle that has a connected anything that I don't have 100% control over. Typically, that means a hardline connection and ONLY that.

GPS, radio, that's fine. Wifi, bluetooth, LTE (of any variety), no. At least not unless there's a hard "off" switch or a fuse I can pull.

Call me a Luddite, I don't fucking care. I do not want or need any of these features. I don't want everyone and God to know where my car is 100% of the time. I don't trust car companies to make bullet-proof connected devices. (Fucking NO ONE ELSE has, so why should I think car companies, of all people, are going to get it right?)

I don't give two shits what other people want, but, please note, I'm not saying they shouldn't spray their location to the planet while being bombarded by whatever security BS comes their way if that's what floats their boat. It's THEIR choice, even if I think it's delusional, and their consequences to bear. But I fucking hate this "connected everything" paradigm that's out there. I'm not a sharer like others (apparently) are.

I just find it hugely annoying that I'll likely have to accessorize any new vehicle purchase of mine with wire cutters...

If its going to be that pervaisive in such safety critical systems as automated traffic management, the security better be dang good from the get go.

Automotive security, LOL.isn't that an oxymoron? Around 40,000 people die in car related "accidents" per year in the US. That's a medium city wiped out every year. No one cares. What's another 20,000 deaths in the name of progress and, um.. er... safety? No one will care.

What a nonsense attitude. Vehicle deaths per 100,000 people peaked in 1937, at around 30.

Going into the 1980s, it was still over 20. In 1990 it's down to 17.8, 2000 sees a drop to below 15 for the first time. In 2014 it was around 10. it's been climbing steadily over the past 2-3 years, for various reasons. Autonomous cars would have to be pretty catastrophically terrible to be a net negative to safety.

Budget cuts and complacency are why we're seeing an increase in automotive deaths, not new technology.

For the record, the number of deaths in traffic accidents in the United States has generally decreased overall. Image The reason for that has nothing to do with budget cuts nor complacency. It has everything to do with mandatory safety regulations in cars.

Once upon a time, car accidents killed more people than gunfire in the U.S. did. Today, they're about even. This is because regulation of guns and safety has been (mostly) stripped away while for cars, it hasn't.

So there is no significant increase in deaths in auto accidents, either in raw numbers, per capita or in miles driven. In all respects, they've gone down.

I like passive safety systems, lane-following, auto-breaking and other safety features that don't require a connection to other vehicles. I like the convenience of GPS (in the exceptionally rare instances I actually need it - I usually memorize the routes before-hand). I like my music for long trips, and will burn CD's if I want it (Yes, very 90's, I get that). Usually, I prefer keeping an ear out for traffic around me (I like to maintain situational awareness).

So those are the limits I'm currently willing to accept with respect to autonomy in my vehicle. I don't see that this chip has anything to do with autonomous vehicles, though, other than to be a vector in hacking them. I tend to see them as more of a means of regulating traffic flow - something that can also be achieved by non-connected sensors. But in both cases, one needs 100% penetration of the technology in order to best make use of traffic management methods.

This, I think, is why V2V hasn't been a thing, despite once being hugely popular. I'm inclined to think that because other safety systems have become more of a standard feature thing (though not in all vehicles), along with a general decrease on the total number of miles driven by most people today (thanks in part to multiple huge spikes in gas prices that prompted people to be more efficient in how they drive) the need to implement V2V for traffic management has been, well, not nearly as pressing as it once was.

I'm not convinced the pressure is back on, either.

Technology does progress. Some embrace it, some don't, some are content to merely be "associates" with it and not friends. That's how life works. What remains to be seen is how well this stuff works. I EXPECT it to work badly, based mostly on how "well" IoT was implemented (yes, that's sarcasm). I could be wrong. But nothing I've seen coming out of any company today suggests anything other than my being right. So until it's done right, a connected car isn't in my future.

Agreed. That is why I only use hand-written letters using pencils and paper I've made myself. The technology thing has so much potential for abuse. It's getting harder and harder to get stamps you have to lick, but they're out there if you know how to look.

Agreed. That is why I only use hand-written letters using pencils and paper I've made myself. The technology thing has so much potential for abuse. It's getting harder and harder to get stamps you have to lick, but they're out there if you know how to look.

Licking stamps is a big opsec no-no! Your DNA gets on that shit, then everybody will know your weak point is 5% more likelihood of getting prostate cancer!

If its going to be that pervaisive in such safety critical systems as automated traffic management, the security better be dang good from the get go.

This is Qualcomm we are talking about here. You'll have to throw your car away and buy a new one every 3 years or so just to get drivers supported by current OSes, if their treatment of Android is anything to go by.

I think the problem may be the X part of this. If the equivalent chip for the infrastructure items, only cost 1$ and only requires one screw and a couple of wire nuts to install multiply that small cost by the number of traffic lights, school zone signs, buses etc. The municipalities will manage to say they can't afford it.

And I am assuming that they will be able to buy for 1$ specific versions of the X chip that say " I am a school zone and I am here and the speed limit is now 25mph" ( and of course the " End of school zone..." version) without the city having to write any software.

Agreed. That is why I only use hand-written letters using pencils and paper I've made myself. The technology thing has so much potential for abuse. It's getting harder and harder to get stamps you have to lick, but they're out there if you know how to look.

Have you missed all the stories covering the Android security mess or the burning trash pile that is IOT security?

Not even Apple offers security updates for 6 year old cell phones, which is how old my newest car is! My other vehicles are 15 and 32 years old.

Apparently, you also didn't read the article here covering the Jeep hack that resulted in 1.4 million vehicles being recalled, the FBI warning article, or noticed that automotive security is enough of an issue that Ars Technica now has a category or articles about this! Ars Technica has a bunch of articles about this and it's only a single source of information.

What all of the above videos have in common is that all of them cover how insecure embedded systems (like those being discussed in the article) can be.

Personally, I tend to be distrustful of promises made by people trying to sell me stuff. Especially when what's being promised comes at the cost of extra development time and money, and requires obsessive levels of discipline in sacrificing features and ease of use for extra security. Theo de Raadt is known for being obsessively security minded. Companies that make consumer products, including cars, seem to be on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Maybe this time will be different.

Somehow, I don't believe it will be and I'm not willing to risk my family's life that it will be. Sadly, I don't think the features over security mindset will change until a fair number of people die. Worse, there are a bunch of crazy people who'd probably like nothing more than to make this happen...